The spirit and intent of the Founding Fathers has caused many thought provoking discussions in our divided nation in recent years. The argument of Secular or Judeo-Christian Values bases are debated on the streets and in judicial halls of justice.

The goal of this Topic post IS NOT to resolve which view is correct as opposing views are, Conservatives are bible thumping idiots trying to re-write the constitution verses Liberals are Secular Anti-Christ heathens trying to re-write the constitution. We don’t need to go there, but we could educate ourselves in order for an intelligent discussion on the different viewpoints and possibly learn something on the way.

For example in my opinion when I read an article on Patriarchy and read “the Roman Catholic Church believes that God the Father passed down his authority to the bishops, who are sometimes called patriarchs. In the Roman Catholic Church, only men are allowed to be bishops. In the United States the men who signed the Constitution are referred to as "founding fathers."” It leads me to think hey they were following the church values of the time.

Or, the Treaty of Tripoli clearly proves America is a Secular nation!

This is the question to debate: What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

Reference to actual documents or scholar’s writings best support either view position in the debate.

References I like are:
Constitution Society http://www.constitution.org/
Of the State of Nature. http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr02.htm John Locke
1632-1704
Our American Common Law http://www.svpvril.com/OACL.html

I have studied the issue in depth and conclude our nation’s laws and government were founded on Judeo-Christian “Values.”

Now have fun!

Good question. First what must be established is the difference between Judeo-Christian "Values" and Philosophy and Judeo-Christian Theology. When a person says the Constitution was based on Christianity...they mean that the philosophy of the religion (such as love you neighbor as you would love yourself and free will). Secularists belive that the zealots think that the Founding Fathers wanted a Christian nation. No...its the philosophy and not the theology.

Moving on from that...yes the nation is founded on Judeo-Christian Values because the FFs were God-fearing men. They were Deists...believed in a Higher Power but not all the miracle mumbo jumbo. Read the Declaration of Independence...A "God" is mentioned several times. Now lets look at one of the FFs addresses...this is George Washington's Proclamation of National Thanksgiving:



There you go. The whole seperation of church and state phrase is not in the Constitution. Secularists use this phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson as there leverage. But few take into account the context in which it was said. Jefferson wrote that in a letter in response to a Baptist group who were afraid the Federal gov't would adopt a national denomination. Jefferson said no...for government and religion are seperate.

We must further look into the context in which the clause in the US Constitution was put in place in the first place. The FFs were afraid that the Protestants would come to power due to their heavy influence. Look at the colonies of Rhode Island and Mass. where religious intolerance was widespread.

People in this debate will spill quotes left and right from Jefferson and Madison and stuff...but it will mean nothing if they do not put it in the proper context.

This is the question to debate: What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

From what I have read, God is acknowleged by many of the FF, but I don't remember one of them specifiying a particular religion as being favored by themselves or by God.
And historically speaking, they were also very aware of the problems that existed in Europe based on religions getting involved in government, even to the point of telling us that the Kings ruled by divine appointment from God. It was a conspiracy of government and religion working against the best interests of the rest of us.
It seems clear enough to me that they wanted a secular government and a people that respected moral values at the same time. A moral people are easier to govern.
Judeo-Christian values existed before Christ, so I think the term moral values is more appropriate.

This is the question to debate: What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

This is a very easy question, and I don't even need sources to back me up, just plain common sense.

First Amendment of the Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

First of Moses' Ten Commandments: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

The two are obviously in direct contrast with one another, so if the founding fathers had at all intended a "representative government based on Judeo-Christian 'values,' the first amendment wouldn't even exist. It is not a Judeo-Christian value to let people live and worship as they please - and I'm not attacking religion here, just stating how it is.

My second point: the personal beliefs of the founding fathers are completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they were Christian, or deist, pagan, or agnostic. We use the words they wrote and the documents they left to determine how to operate our government, not their personal beliefs. Just because some of the founding fathers had Christian leanings does not mean that this government was intended to espouse Christian views and morals. This country was founded by many men, some of who happened to be Christian - not "this country was founded by Christian men." There is a world of difference between having a religion and founding a country, and founding a country based on your religion.

I could easily turn that argument on its head anyway, and say that "because some of the founding fathers believed in slavery, obviously it's okay to write slavery into law." Or how about "because the founding fathers were all white, obviously this country was intended to be a country where the laws are biased towards white males."

Put this long-winded piece of weak supporting evidence -



next to



and I think the answer is fairly obvious. In any case, the founding fathers did not refer to themselves as being the founding fathers. As the history of America went on, these individuals were deemed "founding fathers" quite post-mortem. So your entire evidence is completely flawed. But to even play devil's advocate for a moment and assume that they did call themselves the founding fathers - so what? So the etymology of the term has religious roots? How in the world do you make the leap from that, to the Constitution being based on Judeo-Christian values?

You only have to grasp at straws at justification if you're wrong.



The cute thing about that is that the philosophies they mean are whatever you want them to mean. You can say that they mean the philosophies of "love your neighbor as you would yourself" and the anti-gay person would cling to the Judeo-Christian philosophy of "prohibiting unnatural acts (or acts against our god-given nature)" and the anti-choice person would cling to the Judeo-Christian "philosophy" of "thou shalt not kill." Then on the other hand, you can have a pro-choice or pro-gay rights person espousing the Judeo-Christian "philosophy" of free will. So when a person says "America was founded on Judeo-Christian values" they mean "America was founded on the principles found in the Bible that I like." Then you have the individuals who will point to the phrase "in God we trust" on the money (added in 1864), the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (added in 1954), or assertions like "since the public schools used to set aside class time for Biblical instruction," then *obviously* the founding fathers - the last of who I'm certain had died before 1864 - intended this nation to be Christian-based instead of a democracy.

Um... no. I don't think so.



The logic is so horrendously flawed that I honestly don't know where to begin. Let's start by setting to rest the assumption that "god-fearing" (besides the fact that believing in a god doesn't automatically mean you fear it) equates to "Judeo-Christian." Um, sorry, no. Not everyone who believes in a god is Jewish or Christian, leder, so to first (erroneously) claim that they all believed in a god, and then translate to mean that they used Jewish and Christian "values" to write the Constitution is logically inaccurate. Deists are not Christian or Jewish, because if they were Christian or Jewish we wouldn't call them deists - we would call them Christian or Jewish. Second of all, who the hell cares about the Declaration of Independence? This thread is about the Constitution, and it is the Constitution that established the foundation for this country. What the Declaration of Independence did was give us sovereignty over ourselves from the British.

As an aside: God is mentioned several times in the D.o.I? I hardly think so. The word "God" is mentioned once, and guess what - it's called "Nature's God" (hmm seems pretty deist to me). The term "Creator" is used once - huh, for overt Christians they sure seem pretty ambiguous. The dating is in "the year of our lord" - this is absolutely nothing new. If I were to write the date on something, I would put "December 19, 2004." Wow that must mean I'm a Christian, if I use the date of Jesus' birth as a reference point. No, actually it just means that something had to be used to mark the passage of time relative to other things, and someone - most notably not the writers of the D.o.I. - decided Jesus' birth would be a good date to start with. That's a whopping three instances in which a god-like concept was ambiguously referred to. Not exactly a slam-dunk pile of evidence.

Why not let the Constitution speak for itself? If the FFs had wanted a country specifically based on "Judeo-Christian values" (an ambiguous term if ever there was one), why wouldn't they have gone ahead and written the Constitution to reflect that? As it is, they wrote the foundational document for our nation so that the only mention of religion was a negative, ie the government may not get into the religion business.

If they had wanted a Judeo-Christian nation, wouldn't they have mentioned Jesus or Abraham somewhere in our founding documents? Or at least mentioned something positive about some specific religion somewhere?

Hmm I doubt I can beat Steamboats reply at this time. She very sums up my thinking on the subject so far. In the case of Quotes and such Leder, my question would be--Does it really matter what they wrote outside of the Constitution itself. Shouldn't the document itself reflect their thinking? If they did not clearly state intent in the document that set the foundation itself then their personal diaries, letters and publications don't mean all that much. I agree on the use of quotes however. either use as a supporting peice for ones argument, but don't leave it as the only argument. The FF also left clear mechanisms for changing the government so they were open to change.
But neither is it denied by the Constitution. In fact there are no direct mentions of anything biblical. If the whole Judeo Christian beleif was indeed intended to be the guidelines, wouldn't they put in specific mention of Christ? It would have been easy to design the legal code around-- say the 10 commandements-- if that was their intent.

Just as i predicted you confused Judeo-Christian philosophy with theology. I am not saying that the FF thought religion should play a major role in government. No...what i am saying is that it is foolish to believe that it had NOTHING to do with their vision of government. The fact is that they were religious men and believed that the rights given to them were afforded from a Supreme Being.

As i previously said...any quote used is irrelevant unless it is put in its proper context. To believe that the FFs wanted no religion whatsoever is ridiculous. In the context...the reason there was a seperation of church and state was to make sure that the Protestants did not dominate the government...simple as that. I mean, does anyone honestly believe that the secular world we live in today is what they invisioned? Even when they prayed before each session of congress and thanked God for all He has given them?

I noted a respondant pointed out my weak position so I offer more references to refute:
Please refute the Supreme Court’s statements at link:

http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinityOp1-2.htm

Please read Washington Dispatch article God and Washington http://www.washingtondispatch.com/cgi-bin/...iew.cgi/24/6042

More reading to refute secular Government
http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/nat_god/index.htm

Diest's and Christians hold very different ideals. "Judeo-Christian philosophy" is a simply a crutch for the arguement, because those "values" can exist in anyone from an Athiest to a Diest to a Jew.

Just for arguement's sake let's suppose the majority of the FF where christian, it still prove's absolutely nothing, because obviously they wrote into the constitution what they believed to be the best for the people not the best for their religion. In other words, they seperated their religion from the government knowing that other people hold different ideals than they and only wrote what they believed to be in the best interest of everyone in which some of those "values" may happen to be christian. Treating everyone equally is not a virtue that was invented with christianity -- in fact id say it is relatively new to christianity, not to mention many christians still look down upon "non-believers" (ive seen a few on this board). In that respect it's not exclusively a christian value at all. Hell, they broke the mold of Christianity by writing the constitution, it went against everything the church had done in the past so I don't see how anyone can state it was somehow based on "Judeo-Christian philosophy". In fact quite the opposite.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.ht...%20ad%20numerum



This can be said for anything. For example just because most of the people happen to be... white does that mean the constitution was based on "Judeo-white people philosophy"? Can a black person not hold the value of treating everyone as equal?

"One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian."
--The Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, p. 420

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
-- John Adams

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."
--Thomas Jefferson

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
-- James Madison

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Treaty of Tripoli: "As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." -- written by a minister who served under Washington during the revolutionary war. The treaty was read aloud on the senate floor, published in at least two major newspapers, and ratified by President John Adams. The original treaty and copies are preserved in the national archives in Washington DC.

George Washington was repeatedly asked to explicitly declare his religious views in public, but he always declined to do so. On the rare occasions when he visited churches, he always made a point of leaving before the eucharist -- the most central rite of Christianity.

Even if you had evidence to support your statement that "these were god fearing people" you can't make a case that the nation was founded on "Judeo-Christian Values" because those "values" are not exlusive to christianity and it's apparent that at least some of the FF were NOT "god fearing people".

This is the question to debate: What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

Can I just ask, for the sake of better understanding, just what are these Judeo-Christian “Values”?

Leder, I have already addressed this. The "fact" is not that they were religious men. As a person who has found many quotes in which they both condone and condemn Christianity, really your guess is as good as mine. And I have already stated that in the end it does not matter what their personal beliefs were, what matters is what they legislated. It doesn't matter if they think their rights were given to them by Yeshua or Krishna or jelly beans, because in the first amendment it is clearly stated that no law shall respect the establishment of religion. You can't get around this.



This is a complete strawman. Firstly, you have misinterpreted what "separation of church and state" means. This is a reference to the fact that no law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion. Separation of church and state does not mean that there should be no religion whatsoever. It means there should be no religion whatsoever in laws that govern everyone.

Who cares about the Danbury Baptist letter anyway. It's in the Constitution, plain as day, that there shall be no laws respecting the establishment of religion. This means no laws outlawing gay marriage "cause the Bible says so." This means no Sunday "blue laws" "cause the Bible says so." This means no religious test for public office. There are to be absolutely no laws that are explicitly religion-based.

Third, "the secular world we live in today?" No, I don't think so. People are free to express their religion all they want as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Government operations were meant to be secular. Sorry, leder, but that's the way it is. Revisionist history and strawman logic will not erase that. This means that whatever laws and decisions are made, they must be based on secular reasoning. Of course, this isn't the way things operate today - look at the results of "faith-based rehabilitation centers" for inmates and addicts. Look at the results of "abstinence-only" programs. These are explicitly religiously based, and as such - being based on religion instead of sound logic - they fail. This is exactly what the founding fathers legislated against in the First Amendment.

I honestly cannot believe that you, even as a religious person, want to argue against a separation of church and state. Do you want government-mandated purity tests for women getting married, Leder? Do you want pre-marital sex and masturbation outlawed? Do you want legalized slavery? Do you want capital punishment for adulterers? Because you can get all that and more with a "Judeo-Christian morality" based legislation. Not that all that will necessarily happen, but under an explicitly religiously-based legislation, the framework is laid.

Do you want to live in a democracy, where the rights of the minority are protected, or a theocracy?



I'm not refuting a damn thing about the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court has also wrote opinions that separate but equal is Constitutional. The Supreme Court has no standing here, the Constitution says what it says and nothing the Supreme Court can write can refute that.

But I'll play along for a minute. That decision was rendered Feb. 29, 1892. Lemon v. Kurtzman was passed June 28, 1971 and created the three-prong guideline to apply to laws:



So if you're going to argue that the Constitution is Judeo-Christian based, based on a Supreme Court decision rendered decades after the founding fathers died, then I certainly can argue that it's not Judeo-Christian based, based on the separation of church and state guidelines upheld by that same judicial entity.

Per your second link: I don't care what Washington's personal religious beliefs were, and as I've stated and explained in this thread several times, it doesn't freaking matter. George Washington was one of the founding fathers. He is not all of them and he does not represent the beliefs of all of them.

Quoted from your third link of overwhelming evidence for a theocracy: In fact, the entire article does nothing but support the argument that Jefferson was a deist. I have no idea what you were trying to prove by including that article. I was the one arguing all along that most founding fathers' religious leanings were of the Deist variety.

I asked leder, and I'll ask you: do you want to live in a theocracy, where the laws are explicitly religiously based, or a democracy? Our government is set up to be a democracy, with safeguards that the will of the majority not trump the rights of the minority. There is a reason the first ten amendments to the Constitution are referred to as the "Bill of Rights." It doesn't matter if there are a hundred million people living in America, and 99,999,999 of them are Christian. This does not give them impunity to codify their beliefs into law. That one non-Christian will still have the right to express their beliefs, and more importantly, have the right to not be punished for actions that go against the Christian doctrine. If you argue that there is no separation of church and state - meaning that it is perfectly legal to legislate religious beliefs into law - then you are effectively arguing for a theocracy, and most definitely not the democracy the founding fathers envisioned.

Exactly. Actually, this is the state that Founding Fathers had in mind. Honestly I don't quite understand why we spend so much time trying to figure out what our Founding Fathers were thinking 200+ years ago. Most of them were slave owners and the idea of women voting was unthinkable to them.
Our forefathers were, without a doubt, smart and enlightened men for their times. They created the framework of the constitution which worked for more than two centuries. However, we don't preserve slavery just because our FF found it acceptable. Why do we have to look at their religiosity 200 years ago to decide how we have to live TODAY?

The constitution, as well as miles of our legal code that followed, has a historical basis in "Common Law". Common Law has a historical basis in Judeo-Christian philosophy, and beyond that to other, even older religious philosophies as well. However, that is where it ends.

The founding fathers were quite clear about there concerns regarding the need for a separation of church and state. I could go on and on with examples of their thinking, both during the constitutional convention and after. However, that work has already been done here: Separation of Church and State.

I also have a long list of quotations that I posted on My Blog in response to someone's reply, that call into question the very idea that ALL of the founding fathers were religious men.

The fact that some of the founding fathers were religious men and that some of our legal concepts have a historical basis in Judeo-Christian philosophy is interesting trivial information. However, I have seen recently here on AD, some people make the argument that because of these historical links, all sorts of practices, and proposals are wrong and not in keeping with the law because they are not in keeping with Judeo-Christian philosophy. IMHO this is absolute nonsense. This is no different than saying that all sorts of practices and proposals are invalid because they are in opposition to British common law. Just because there is a historical link between our system of governance and another, or between our system of government and a philosophy, does not mean that we are somehow beholden to these links in all things, at all times. Our government is based on ONE Document. The Constitution. So long as a proposed law is not in violation of that document, then it is up to the representative bodies of the people to determine it's value and vote yay or nay on it.

Thomas Jefferson said it best when he said:

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson, _Notes_on_Virginia_, _Jefferson_the_President:_First_Term_1801-1805_, Dumas Malon, Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191

IMHO this answers not only the question of religions involvement in government but also the various questions posed by our society recently, that those of Religious faith had argued so heavily against. What our laws are supposed to come down to is preventing the actions of some from harming others. There are many issues in recent history in America that have been opposed by those of Religious leanings that would cause no harm to them or anyone else. It was this sort of Tyranny that the founding fathers were so concerned about when it came to Religious involvement in Government (not to mention their concerns about the potential Tyranny of the Majority).

"There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current one, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong" - James Madison

Here are two examples of one of the founding fathers, James Madison, as President of the United States, vetoing seemingly minor legislation because of the violation of the first amendment clause regarding establishment of religion. Source (near the bottom of the page):



In regards to Madison, nothing says it better then the man's own words:

"The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE." -- James Madison

There were several founding fathers that were NOT Christian men, at least their words, as detailed on my blog, and countless other sources would certainly have been thought of as heresy by many faiths at the time. They fought hard and successfully for a "TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE" to avoid all of the injustices and wrong doings that they saw though out western Europe, as well as most of the planet in their history as well as their time.

There is no question that much of our legal code can be traced back to Judeo-Christian philosophy. However, to suggest that this then means that anything in opposition to Judeo-Christian philosophy in inherently wrong because of the mere historical connection is a stretch at best. I don't see the difference between this type of reasoning and saying that any legislation published via typewriter, or later computer, is invalid because historically legislation was always drafted by quill.

History teaches us, if we bother to learn. All of the founding fathers were learned men who knew enough about the history of the world to have great concerns about religious intrusion in government (The examples of religiously sanctioned abuses are endless).

As for the mention of the Declaration of Independence in this topic. I personally think a the words of it's writer would serve best to understand the casual nature of the reference to God, Creator, or the Year of our Lord.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." -- Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802, _The_Writings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_Memorial_Edition_, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 1903-04, 16:281

"...our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:545

Some food for thought...i am not a religious person nor do i believe we should live in a theocracy. All of those cheap shots at religious morality are just irrational and ridiculous.



I guess i must clarify everything. Yes, there was no religion respected in the Constitution...that is not what i am saying. I am saying that it is foolish to believe that people who held to Judeo-Christian Philosophy didnt use those values in their creation of the Constitution. It is much like how they adhered to the theories of Locke and Hobbes.



So lets take into account quotes without their proper context? Your assertion that no religious based laws can be passed is wrong for the fact that people can pass laws without mentioning religion. I am sure the Marriage Amendment made no mention of God or religion in its text.



Why must they be made on secular reasoning? Who are you to tell someone how to make decisions? Secular reasoning? The same reasoning that has banned the Declaration of Independence in a California School or is it the reasoning that says you can put up a Menorah in a public place but not a nativity scene?

So you are arguing in the next half of your point that things based on religious logic fails? What kind of argument is this? Contrary to popular belief...religion CAN help people. Just because a select few believe that the rest of rest of the world is under some mass delusion doesnt take away from the fact that religion DOES help people.

Leder, you have yet to establish how every single one of the founding fathers, or even a majority of them, held to the Judeo-Christian philosophy. Simply stating it over and over again without any supporting evidence, and not bothering to defend this position when myself and others point out their deism instead of "Judeo-Christian philosophy" doesn't help your case in the slightest.



And again I redirect you to Lemon v. Kurtzman. I will also clarify my earlier statement: religiously based laws can be passed, but they most definitely are unconstitutional.



What I mean by "secular reasoning" is that the law must be in compliance with secular ideals. If a Christian were to outlaw murder based on their religion, this is fine because a secular person would do the same. The laws must have a secular purpose because that is the only way to ensure that they are the fairest to everyone. It doesn't matter if the majority of Americans are Christian, because there is a sizeable minority who are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. In order to ensure that the laws are fair to everyone, they must have a secular nature.

Btw, banning a nativity scene and leaving a Menorah up is not "secular." Secular means lack of any religion. In California, despite sensationalist headlines that the religious right jumped up and ran with, the Declaration of Independence was not banned. A select teacher was prohibited from only passing out specific documents that refer to god, and this was done because the teacher did so in a very deliberate attempt to bring religion into the classroom. It is not the documents, it's the context.



Sure, religion can help people. Just not using it as a basis for public policy.

I’ll try to make a general explanation of Judeo-Christian VALUES as it applies to our government in the following manner. Please forgive this non-intellectual approach.

We went to war with England because of their vicious secular government, which was a giant step forward from the monarchy.

Have you heard the term a man is the king of his castle? This is a British term used to explain secular law. The British law put a moat around each citizen’s home that the King couldn’t cross with monarch authority because the king (after they killed one) is the authority “that allowed or gave authority” to the secular government to exist. The secular government did not create a moat to keep them out so the people gave up freedom.

Our FF recognized the flaws of the secular system as it applies to governments and peoples freedom. The founders realized the only true freedom is man of free will to do as he pleases. To impose a government is to give up freedom, for with government comes power over peoples freedom. The founders established the constitution, but more importantly the Bill of Rights to protect people’s freedom from the government. Clearly stated is the option to overthrow a government that corrupts the individuals God given rights or Bill of Rights.

NOTE: The founders and members of the union viewed the creation of the Federal Government to have a very small authority verses the authority of member states. Do not be confused by our looming government today.

Our constitution appears almost as though it was cut and pasted from John Locke’s writings, a British Church Philosophy professor. To place a moat around each citizen’s house in America the Declaration of Independence, constitution, Bill of Rights and laws were based on Common Law unlike any government in the world. Fixed laws to which an open court of citizen jurors based on their VALUES judged infractions. One must acknowledge the majority of society of the time-shared Judeo-Christian values; many were illiterate with little knowledge of law. The government actually promoted education involving faith in order for a high degree of moral character exists in society (see George Washington’s writings earlier discussed). However, the Constitution placed a moat protecting the citizen from a “single dominate religion” to rule through influence. Western Europe was filled with countries that taxed citizens for the dominant church during that period. Actually, I think Finland still does tax citizens for government and church taxes as I type.

Common law is based on laws since recorded history and evolved and continues to evolve based through morals in societies. At the time of founding of the constitution religious values were blatantly obvious as many laws reflect to this day.

A NOTE ON THE TREATY OF TRIPOLI: George Washington spoke out about this treaty negatively in fear of its future use as being applied by atheist today. I will find the quote and provide it at a later time. I try to picture the state of affairs of the time as I hum ‘from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli’ and conclude with missing documents a very elaborate ruse was used to avoid war as the nation was nearly unmanageable with expansion and recovery from war, just a theory mind you.

And, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you!

First--the select few attitude you throw out is a very good reason for the separation of church and state. I won't claim that secularists are by any means the majority--but the number does increase every year. Also those who are Agnostic/ Deist in that they just do not know what they beleive. Much of the push these days to return to a "Judeo Christian" morality by legislation has to do with this fact. kind of a holding action. The hold of those with a strict religious view is slipping over this country. Modern entertainment and the changes to family and sexuality show this.
Question? if the whole country is so plainly Christian as you are trying to imply--how come you can not simply come up with a supermajority and then make all the laws you want to impose your will on the rest of us? Just curious.
If Christian morality is so prevalent how come the highest ratings for some of the trashiest television programs--such as Desperate Housewives--is in the Red states?
I will agree that some of the court rulings about Christmas are silly--but they are also being made into more than they are. It is far from the prevaling norm. I can show you some very nice Christmas displays set up here in Phoenix.
The teacher in the northwest has done a fine job of manufacturing a supposed discrimination against Christians. really Leder i thought you would have seen that one pretty clearly for what it was. A deliberate set up to help fan the flames. The hard right needs to strike hard if they are going to have any shot of keeping political momentum. Quite simply Leder, there are not enough of them in the Republican party to maintain enough control to easily pass the legislation they want without popular support and without the flash point of Kerry for President there support is fading.
As for the Intent of the Founders My argument remains that if they wanted to make it a Judeo Christian nation only they failed badly to reflect this in their work. The Constitution is very bare in references. Leading me to beleive they wanted you to live your own life and me mine and each keep their own business to themselves.
Unfortunately both sides have a compulsion to inflict their morality on others.

Sarge, you really do not explain what the supposed values of the Judeo christian are supposed to be. I am willing to bet mine as a secularist match your without having the influence of your Judeo Christian upbringing. you will have to forgive me because I do not imply you do this--But I am very tired of the JDC supporters trying to imply I am somehow Evil or less than human because i base my morality in what i beleive to be the right way to live and treat others. you cannot offer a single supposedly JDC only value i do not myself hold. While it may not match 100% I have found most cultures hold almost the same identical values in most cases.

The fact that they took ideas from the writings of a Church Philosophy Professor does not mean that the entire Philosophy of the church, or the Philosopher were meant to be included in the constitution. You seem to suggest here (I could be misreading you) that by taking on some of the ideals of one source we must somehow be beholden to all other ideals from that source. Yet that does not seem to work with other sources used.

We got the concept of a filibuster from the Roman Senate. Yet we did not choose to have a Senate made up of conscripted, patrician heads of families as the Roman Senate was (though until 1913 and the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, our senators were appointed rather then elected).

The concept of democracy can be traced back to the Greek city-state of Athens. Specifically the democratic ideas of a government responsible to the governed, of trial by jury and of civil liberties of thought, speech, writing and worship can all be found there. Yet we chose to avoid the city-state mechanism the Greeks employed for so long.

The founding fathers, the learned men that they were, took into account the writings and philosophies of many great minds though out human history to develop ideas for a new government. Then they debated, argued and compromised until a consensus was reached. My ideas of great minds were included, others were not. I don't think the founding father's thought that by including a idea from one source that they would be somehow including everything ever proposed by that source.

Other then "the year of our lord" (which could hardly be considered a ringing endorsement) the Constitution makes no reference whatsoever to God. If the document was actually based on these Judeo-Christian values and philosophies then why would the founding fathers have written the bedrock document that founded the government without once mentioning God?



To the best of my knowledge, Juries were never intended to judge guilt or innocence based on values. They were and certainly are now, supposed to judge the accused based on evidence and the letter of the law. Even if a Jury feels a particular law is unjust, they have a duty to uphold that law. As citizens they have a duty to seek the repeal of that law, but as jurors their job is to determine if the accused violated the law, not if the law violated the accused.




Agreed, and this comes from the morals of many societies, many of which were not Judeo-Christian in nature like the Greeks and the Romans, both of whom were multi-deity societies. "Common Law" has a long tradition of continually adopting what works and discarding what does not. Choices made in this regard, though out history, had more to do with what worked then what was right in regard to an particular religion.



I don't think you made the case for Judeo-Christian values. I don't think your post actually defined them. There are many instances of Judeo-Christian values being twisted and used to promote acts that we consider barbaric today, if not evil. The Inquisition, The Crusades, The Stoning to Death of Adulterers, etc.

I am thankful that the founding father's had the good sense to realize that nothing has the ability to be a corrupting influence quite like organized religion. They saw the history of religious tyranny and worked tirelessly to ensure that it was not repeated here.

Check it out I learned something. I have also thought the idea of voting with electorates appointed to the electoral college, which may vote opposite of the public will, marked a special club also. I guess the Senate is still a big private club regardless of what we see on CSPAN II. But I find myself again thinking which was it the chicken or the egg because like the Roman Senate the Catholic Church has similar methods. And, I wonder if the FF just thought the public was too ignorant to choose a learned Senator, and looking at some maybe they were correct? Perhaps a combination of states rights and lack of communications abilities weighed on the original reasoning?


In the link I provided in my first post on Common Law points out the rejection of Civil Law adjudicated by a judge without a jury. Athens Is why I hope I am on the side of correctness on the post as the government ended when Cesar after Cesar was thrown from the throne because of liberalism and lack of morals it resulted in.


I haven’t said the FF wrote anything based on God only Values. In France the French language is expected in America the English is expected, in America with a nation, at the time filled with Christians I would think Christian values would be expected. Under a secular, Nature’s God with the beliefs all persons are born of free will why would blacks and women excluded in protections. Why do we have the death penalty? All of these things strike me as being strait from the Old Testament of the Bible. Why a Senate Chaplin, why a House Chaplin, why crosses on Arlington National Cemetery, why is the bible the first option for oath to sworn truth? Why do tax dollars pay for Chapels and Chaplin’s in the military? Why did George Washington find soldiers to fight England when in his speech he said, we as countrymen share the common values of the Almighty as basis for his ability to recruit?


I agree with your view of what I wrote, but the intent was to say the Common Laws they adopted included laws of Judeo-Christian Values, and, actually even defined between Christian values in the case of number of wives and the countrymen were allowed to judge based on morals violations to Judeo-Christian Values laws. Had the government be secular the religious laws would have been ferreted out since they do not support the basis of secular ethics. If you are to say these Values were chosen according to what worked you, form a secular stance remove freedoms from some citizens. If I want ten wives why can’t I have ten wives? If I want to marry a man why can’t I marry a man or ten men? Is it because it was proven in other societies it didn’t work or something other than secular like religious values?

This is the question to debate: What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

There is no way the founding fathers could have envisioned the pluralistic society we have in the U. S. today. Still I don’t think they had any intention of creating representative government based on Judeo-Christian values. Let’s examine some primary sources:

The Declaration of Independence



The Declaration of Independence Link

While Jefferson talked about “Nature’s God” and “their Creator,” these phrases are too vague to imagine they have any direct reference to anything Judeo-Christian.

The U. S. Constitution

The only reference to religion in the original Constitution was found in Article VI, Section 3:



The Federalist Papers

In Federalist 52 Madison amplifies this provision:



Note Madison’s use of the word particular. Such would exclude preference for “Judeo-Christian” beliefs.

The Bill of Rights

When the Bill of Rights went into force in 1791 these words were included in the first Amendment:



The First Amendment both protected the individual’s right to pursue beliefs, whether Judeo-Christian or otherwise, and barred the Congress from establishing a religion.

Amendment 14

In1866 the Fourteenth Amendment applied the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the States:



THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS

After leaving office, John Adams (2nd President) and Thomas Jefferson (3rd) exchanged frequent letters on current political matters. Their thoughts on religion are relevant to this thread:

Adams to Jefferson, June 28, 1813:



Jefferson to Adams, January 11, 1817:



Adams to Jefferson, May 18, 1817:



Adams and Jefferson quotes taken from The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson & Abigail & John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon, 1959.

As much as some in George Bush’s America would love it, the country was founded as religiously neutral. The last quote from Adams describes what some religious conservatives would do if they had the chance.

This sentence is hard to parse, but are you saying that the Caesars were corrupt and immoral because they were liberals? The Caesars? I must be misunderstandong you on this...



Ol Sarge, there are a lot of religions and social traditions out there that encourage misogyny, racial prejudice, and the death penalty. Why do they strike you as particularly Judeo-Christian? It seems that you are trying to make the evidence match your preconceived notions rather than the other way around.



So provision is made in certain government organizations to meet the needs of their members - including spiritual & religious needs. There is also this thing called the USO, but that doesn't mean that our federal government was formed to promote rock music and stand-up comedy, does it? And as I understand it (a buddy of mine is studying to become a USAF Chaplain), all major religions must be represented. So how is this proof of a Constitution that gives any particular preference to Judeo-Christian values?



Maybe because almost all of the potential recruits were Christians? And because Washington himself had strongly held religious beliefs - which he nevertheless explicitly did not wish to be enforced by the government?

The more folks point out how strongly some FFs believed in religion, the more obvious it is that the FFs placed a HUGE amount of importance in the separation of church and state. It's not like they were indifferent Christians who wrote guidelines into the Constitution about "oh and you might want to check out the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount for some ideas when interpreting these laws". It's just the opposite; they held very strong religious convictions and also made it a point to keep these beliefs separate from the government.



Why do you insist on proclaiming a federal Judeo-Christian primacy everywhere when the obvious and reasoned explanation is so much more viable? The FFs weren't trying to remake America into some Enlightenment utopia which exalted pure reason over all tradition. What they they were trying to do was hard enough: to make sure that their new government did not have the power to persecute its citizens - including religous persecution by the majority religion. Why should they have tried to change existing social traditions on top of trying to create a new, religion-neutral government?

In explanation of Creator I can only find the following information: Demiurge= Creator in governmental philosophy. This was a failed Greek system not adopted since we adopted Common Law. So one must conclude Creator is the higher power deemed to be the father of Jesus. I make note that secular thinkers of the period did believe in God (Christ) if Jesus is the first name and Christ his father or family name. According to the dictionary Deism is defined as a believer in God just not the book of Revolutions in the Bible that my wife who reads it tells me is the prediction of the end of the world threatened. Locke fell into this religious group of thinking. For natural or natures God I found: The philosophical theology of Saint Thomas Aquinas sought to do justice to the natural knowledge of God while at the same time exalting the revealed knowledge in the gospel, and it wove the disparate parts of the tradition into a unified whole. And, Deist used the term Nature’s God, in the meaning the father of Jesus if Deist “lite” and if Deist to vociferous extreme near atheist.
“Deism was influential in late-18th-century America, where Deistic views were held by Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington. The most vociferous American Deists were Ethan Allen and Thomas Paine” according to Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia. If you have available Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia read the article on Deist and Rationalism and you will find both were religious beliefs of which John Locke, I mentioned earlier also wrote from. Please note that Locke believed all knowledge was achieved through the senses and not innate to from Nature’s God. I conclude George Washington’s statements in his farewell address confirm Deist “lite” sentiments to base on other writings from him I presented earlier. Now if you continue to read about Deism and early American history in Encarta through the Civil war you will find the more vociferous Deist were among those who killed the VA plantation owners to initiate the Civil War. From this knowledge I conclude had vociferous Deist been the lead in the FF’s work the slavery issue would have been addressed from the beginning construction of the Constitution.



I read this in the spirit of no endorsement of a particular religion run for office to the US House of Representatives, in other words he did not want a particular religion to be a prerequisite to run for office. Of course he also wrote When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated. In Federalist 37.


I read also in Federalist 37 “The precise extent of the common law, and the statute law, the maritime law, the ecclesiastical law, the law of corporations, and other local laws and customs, remains still to be clearly and finally established in Great Britain,” so one could conclude the 1st Amendment was pointing out the US will not establish or enforce ecclesiastical law as practiced in Great Britain nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. The US government didn’t want in the business of resolving church matters as apparently GB was involved at the time. This has nothing to do with values used in basing the US laws. Your quote below “Adams to Jefferson, May 18, 1817:” makes prime example of the fact the US government would not referee ecclesiastical law as practiced in Great Britain and nothing more.

What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, ...

Well, since none of the "Founding Fathers" (I wonder would the men who wrote the Constitution be flattered or embarrassed by that epithet?) wrote a commmentary or diary - the 18th Century equivalent of a blog? - detailing their thinking at the time they were drawing up, the only thing we can unequivocally say is that we do not know, and are never likely to know.

...Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

Well, firstly, I think it's something of a false dichotomy to think that they either wanted a secular or a representative Judeo-Christian democracy. Are we trying to imply that secular government cannot represent Judeo-Christian views?

And what, exactly, is Judeo-Christian anyway? Did not Islam arise directly from Judeo-Christian roots (why else would Moses and Jesus be revered?)? Aren't all the things we now regard as barbaric about Sharia law just the literal and consistent application of "Old Testament" ideas of justice - eye for an eye, not suffering witches to live, stonings as punishment, etc? (FWIW, I think they are barbaric, and as such are evidence of the redundancy of the Old Testament as the sole source of judicial inspiration).

But, no matter what views they expressed in their other correspondence, none of Constitution's authors thought so much of the Judeo-Christian tradition that they wanted it referred to in the Constitution itself.

I don't think they expressly wished for Constitutional secularity either - their hesitance to claim theological legitimacy for their creation stemmed more from historical lessons than from far-sighted desires to avoid controversy over stone tablets outside federal courthouses or hymn-singing in public schools, since until the Constitutional was written and implemented, such institutions did not exist.

The old quotation says that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It is wisdom enough, and unprecedented enough for the time, for the FF's to have learned from history that state-sponsored religion was generally a bad idea that they wanted to avoid.

The early history of America, and of the European refugees who founded it, was one of religious persecution not just by other sects or religions, but by actual states espousing other sects or religions.

I believe that the First Amendment (that starts " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof") was, first and foremost, designed to prevent the kind of religious persecution by the state that caused so many problems in European and early American history.

The beauty of (and the trouble with) this clause, and the Constitution as a whole, is that it is worded elegantly enough to make people think that it is universally applicable. The FF's were wise and noble, and far-sighted in many things, but they were not some collection of New World Nostradamuses who foresaw every eventuality.

That's why they set up provisions to allow the Constitution to be amended. If there is some part of the Constitution whose usefulness has waned, or one that has even become more of a burden than a benefit (the Second?) change the damned thing. That's what the Amendment process is for.

They knew that stuff would come up which they couldn't possibly have antitipated - such as a decline in moral standards caused by creeping secularism. Or a neo-Reformation of born-again Bible thumpers attempting to recreate the moral panic of 17th Century England - you're either with us or you're against us indeed.

Basically these two opposing positions are something that the Founding Father's had no single or settled view on. Modern-day Americans are going to have to work it out for themselves. You're all grown up now - you "Fathers" may be wise and noble, but their also old and out of touch. Their wisdom and nobility will not solve your problems on their own - you need to find your own wisdom and nobility (and stop running back to hide in their shadow every time something comes up that scares you).

Read overlandsailor's original post.



Here is an in depth judge ruling that outlines the decision made by the founding fathers with historical background written into the opinion.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/re...premecourt.html



That's a ringing endorsement for a secular government.



For the government to fund religion in any way Thomas Jefferson considered sinful and tyrannical.



That would mean "this court recognizes that funding any religion in any way is sinful and tyrannical and no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever".



What was in the mind of the Founding Fathers as they drafted the US Constitution, Secular government or a representative government based on Judeo-Christian “Values?”

Secular government

They could only do so much. Without the support of the southern states the vision of a free country would not survive. The attempts to place clauses to condemn slavery were shot down.


The attempts were made yet the FFs realized they just couldn't acheive both and chose to leave them out and ensure the birth of the Constitution. They were confident that the future generations of Americans would do what they could not and strike down slavery.
For a really good paper on this you might enjoy reading Matthew Spaldings "How to understand Slavery and the American Founding" Some of his work can be found on the Heritage Foundations website.
http://www.heritage.org/About/Staff/MatthewSpalding.cfm

All i can say about the Deism of many of the Founders is simply this. They realized that they were a minority. Plus they also realized that the morality that can be instilled by Christianity would help the nation survive and prosper. Giving a more evangelical face to the world they could accomplish more than if they were sidelined for their Deism.
To find Deists among the leaders of the American colonies should not be suprising since the Enlightenment was all the rage among wealthy and educated persons. Voltaire, Locke, etc. So they favored Natural religion over Revealed religion.
It was the first of the Great Awakenings that stopped Desim and made it unpopular and not always safe to publicly follow.
Anyone who wants some interesting reading should learn the history of the Great Awakenings in America. The current run by the Christian Coalition has happened before. There have been definite Evangelical movements before that have rivalled or surpassed the current movement.
firery Hellfire and Damnation preaching taking hold over the nation has occured before.
One thing I find strange is that deism seemed to have been the strongest among the southern colonies. Especially given that slavery was strongest there. Considering the almost fanatical beleif in Independance held by Southeners--which I identify with-- I find that a cause for wonder that slavery not only took hold but thrived. That evangelicalism eventually overtakes the South. Many of the most "devout" Desists came from the South--Virginia for example.
The shining City on a Hill vision was very popular among many Deists. The independent nature of Americans and the beleif that America would be an example to the world to throw off the chains of oppression and create Democracy was the strongest in the South.
Yet slavery and Evangelicalism won out in terms of control?
http://www.deism.org/history.htm says it much better than i can.


In the end I would have to say it is not Secularism (Deism) nor the Evangelicals that are causing so much trouble for the vision of America--but instead perhaps the dominace of the 2 party system that inevitably leads to conflict by 2 conflicting visions of America. Visions which exist for themselves and seek only to feed their continued survival, without any care for what is best for America or reflecting the spirit with this country was founded. This allows the worst to gain control.
For those who just love to read the words of the Founders the best reasoning for my last statement is IMO supported very strongly by Washington's Farewell Address.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm



May I also congratulate the posters here. What often leads to inflammatory and even hateful posting has--and is being dealt with in a very mature and open minded debate. Definetely a good relflection on the effoorts of Mike and Jaime.

I agree with much of what you present especially the political two party systems GW warned about.

Since you identify with the independence of the South I thought you might find this interesting. Like the Korean Conflict there is only a cease-fire in the Civil War and hostilities could resume should the North or South so choose without declaration. Check out this link http://www.civil-liberties.com/ and choose The Evils of Necessity IV

It reads in part”
“In today's politically correct revisionist history, it is taught that Lincoln was dead set against slavery and thus freed the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation. Although that sounds heroic and nice, it is far from what Lincoln had in mind.
As a war tactic 3 years into the Civil War, a tactic which proved to be a popular one, Lincoln abolished slavery, however, his proclamation only applied to a small section of the South which was declared in rebellion against the United States and under the control of the Confederate Army. Slavery remained legal in every other State that previously allowed it. Slaves continued to work at the White House and the white Indentured Servant business flourished. Lincoln even went as far as using the Union military to protect the Slave Trading Businesses of the North after the Civil War ended.”

Thomas Jefferson said:
"Our rulers can have no authority over [our] natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."

I understand the secular thinking of the period was less militant than it became in the mid 1800’s but time after time the secular Jefferson and Madison speak of God in the terms of the father of Jesus. I reviewed some files on Madison yesterday by Professor on historical studies of Judeo-Christian capitalism that just praised both Jefferson and Madison and gave credit to Jefferson for the statue in front of the UN building that was placed after being judged just by an ecclesiastical law court in Spain for the wrong treatment of American Indians. I just can’t place secular then with now in proper context.